UKC

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/how-well-do-you-see-color-173018

Interesting test.

I scored 4 (lower score is better) on a non-calibrated work screen (but it is a very good screen, which helps)

In reply to ChrisJD: I took one look at the page and instantly went dizzy as it's on a black background, I don't know what that means but didn't get far enough to get a score.....

In reply to ChrisJD: ditto

In reply to ChrisJD: I managed 63. I knew I was bad, but...

In reply to ChrisJD:

Perfect score for me

In reply to ChrisJD:

Scored 4 - On a non calibrated laptop screen.
Looks like I made some purple-blue errors.

In reply to ChrisJD:

I scored 0 on a cheap, non-calibrated screen!

In reply to ChrisJD:

24 on a crap monitor and not trying hard enough, with tired eyes, cheap fluorescent lighting etc. Though I can't see myself getting lower than 10 even in ideal conditions.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Errors in the dull orange and the green-to-"turquoise" regions. Yellows, violets, peach/pink all OK

In reply to ChrisJD:

I scored 7 on bog standard small screen at work. There were a few I wasn't happy were right, but I couldn't manage to shuffle them so they looked better.

It interesting, though - I am definitely much more fussy about colour matching than my husband and his parents - when it comes to decorating, they'll be quite happy that two colours are the same, and I'll be convinced they're completely different.

I also have a good memory for colour (ie rather like absolute pitch - I can reliably pick out a colour in a shop to match something I don't have with me), which is a trait in my mother's family.

In reply to ChrisJD:

interesting i got 4 as well with the "discrimination" problem area being in the pink / purple range (13 to 16 from the right side)

In reply to ChrisJD:

I scored 44 on a laptop screen thats on its way out

I only did the first row, but I got it perfectly right.

I have a calibrated screen and one of my labs is a colour matching team, and I should be able to see differences.

There is a knack to it.

In reply to ChrisJD: 11 for me.

In reply to ChrisJD:

0 <smug>

In reply to ChrisJD:

133. Highest score yet, losers.

In reply to ChrisJD: A perfect - lots are the same colour!

In reply to M0nkey:

Wow I thought the scale was 1-100 but I just checked, clicking without changing anything, and got 1011. That makes me feel a bit better about my 24!

In reply to M0nkey:

82... I thought I was bad...

In reply to ChrisJD:

Anyone feeling smug about their 0 score should have a crack at this one:

http://color.method.ac/

In reply to ChrisJD:

Just done it again (because I managed to skip past the bit where it shows you where in the spectrum your errors were first time) and managed a 3.....

In reply to abseil:

I thoght I'd done well until I saw my score - of 111. No wonder I wear either black, white or grey (or at least, I THINK that's what I wear....)

JW

In reply to Adam Long:



First go - hard on the later ones to work what to do!: 6.5

Sure it would get better with practice

In reply to ChrisJD:

I did it very fast, with very tired eyes. 12

In reply to ChrisJD:

Interesting test: 0 (on a MacBookPro). So at least whatever was disappointing me with Lr5 and my RAW images of Iceland wasn't my eyes! (I think I've cracked it, btw, Chris, but more anon.)

In reply to John Ww:

Just done it again, taking a bit more care this time - now down to 49 from 111. It's the reddy/purply bits I can't seem to differentiate.

In reply to ChrisJD:

I got 4 as well, the bottom line caught me out.

In reply to ChrisJD:

8.8 on that one, like you said, I'm sure you could practice to improve with that test.

In reply to M0nkey:


Pah, pathetic. 215! Read and weep non-colourblind people. To be honest I got bored moving blocks around that basically all look the same to me.

In reply to ChrisJD: ZERO! Quite surprised really. My screen is not calibrated either, but it is a non-glossy Samsung which might help.

In reply to Adam Long:



7.3 first go, kept me entertained for a while!

In reply to Adam Long:

7.0 It's more a accuracy & speed test that one.

In reply to Fultonius:

6.2. Fun! I got confused...

In reply to ChrisJD: zero on second go

In reply to ChrisJD: 135.

but I already knew I was colour blind by the standard dotty test, pass lantern tests though for PPL and military so colourblind...but not really...weird situation.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Need to try it one eye at a time now as ny eyes see things in different shades

In reply to ChrisJD:

0

(basically using bubble sort)

In reply to ChrisJD:

A perfect 0, get in. On a 10 year old 17" LCD that I have sort of 'calibrated' by eye.

In reply to ChrisJD: 31, but using a ZX Spectrum connected to a 1950s black and white tv

In reply to ChrisJD: 8. apparently I'm crap with blues. good test!

In reply to pebbles:

Tritanomalous perhaps?

The test is an electronic version of one of the detailed colour vision tests used by opticians (none actually use it, it takes too long, but in specialist hospital clinics it might be used). You can analyse the results to show which of the cones in the retina (of the 3 types which respond most to red, green and blue light - kind of) are absent, dodgy, or just 'calibrated' a bit differently to colour-normal people's. It certainly is a good test, but there's a slightly better one where you have to try to match two patches of colour by turning dials.

Shrimps would do very well on this test, they have loads of different cone types and so presumably perceive a far greater rainbow of colours than us trichromats (animals with 3 cones). I would love to know what the world looked like to them...

In reply to dutybooty:

There's loads of different types of colour deficiency, certain tests pick out certain ones. The lantern things are quite specific to occupational demands, I think.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


Me too - couldn't keep track of which target changed which wedge. Colour-sighted, but stupid, apparently